Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

I have a different view. It is not something IMHO which gives one great physical ability. It is an ability where you would put your partner to feel the effects of the laws of nature to its maximum.

Uke does not have one opponent but two: Nage and the laws of nature (eg gravity, leverage, centrifugal force, etc). My theory is that uke does not submit to nage per se but to the effects of the forces he uses. Everybody succumbs to the laws of nature. No one is immune. This is my interpretation of Osensei's saying that you are the universe.

That is why it is possible in the example of Endo sensei's case where he does not grab uke or in the case of Saito or Hikitsuchi sensei to do no-touch aiki techniques. You can also validate these theories in the dojo if you know what you need to use.

At it's highest level imho, you can actually "remove" nage during the technique and uke falls by himself since nage does not rely on himself per se for the technique but on the effects of the forces. It is the forces that are strong and immovable and it just reflects on nage. That is also why a lot of people view aikido's techniques as magical yet they are not.

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Tom Quinn wrote:

I suggest that these are not different definitions of aiki, but causes and effects, provided one starts with the premise that C is the definition of aiki.

Hey Tom,
Thanks for the concise, and thoughtful reply.

Quote:

If aiki is a body ability, that once acquired gives it's practitioner great physical power, making them seem unmovable and strangely forceful. then it stands to reason that once acquired, it would allow your body to automatically adapt to movements and changes made by an attacker/opponent, that make the opponent feel strange, weak, unable to adapt to you.

So you started with "C" here, and moved on to say how that makes "D". I got where you're going. However, to me, "C" (and maybe we just need a better definition of the phenomenon of "C") sounds like it is describing a kind of physical powerfulness. If we compared you to a child for example, you are much much more powerful then the child, to him you would seem unmovable and strangely powerful (Definition "C"). However your power over the child doesn't give you definition "D" "automatically able to adapt to movements and changes made by the child (ever had a kid surprise you with a hit to the face? HA). It also doesn't make the child feel strangely weak, he just can simply tell the you are more power then he is. Like if you arm wrestled one of the competitors from the "worlds strongest man", he would probably easily beat you, but you wouldn't feel strange, or weaker then normal. Definition "D" has a quality about it that requires a strangeness or otherworldly quality. Definition "C" seems to simply show great physical power.

Quote:

It would also stand to reason that two equally skilled opponents when looking for an opening would be in a situation created by two people, of equal skill wherein neither can make a successful attack, locking them in a stand off and that if one person was more skilled than his opponent that he would have ability to understand, blend with, lead and manipulate the mind/intention of his opponent.

There is a problem here where we get into if one person were more skilled. That would eliminate definition "A" all together, because they are equally skilled. An example of this that I saw from Josh Reyder (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showth...t=18203&page=6) he was saying that in Yagyu Shinkage-ryu when the word Aiki is used, they are talking about "Departing the Aiki" in a situation where both opponents were in a unity of "attack and defense".

Having the ability described by "B" seems to be a different type of phenomenon to me then a physical skill, or body ability.

Quote:

In essence, it's like the blind men and the elephant, each describing a different animal because they each got hold of a different part.

I definitely agree with you here! The thing I'm trying to avoid/find our way through, is something like one of the blind men yelling "I can feel that the elephant is pink" and all the other blind men agreeing.

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Mario Tobias wrote:

I have a different view. It is not something IMHO which gives one great physical ability. It is an ability where you would put your partner to feel the effects of the laws of nature to its maximum.

Uke does not have one opponent but two: Nage and the laws of nature (eg gravity, leverage, centrifugal force, etc). My theory is that uke does not submit to nage per se but to the effects of the forces he uses. Everybody succumbs to the laws of nature. No one is immune. This is my interpretation of Osensei's saying that you are the universe.

That is why it is possible in the example of Endo sensei's case where he does not grab uke or in the case of Saito or Hikitsuchi sensei to do no-touch aiki techniques. You can also validate these theories in the dojo if you know what you need to use.

At it's highest level imho, you can actually "remove" nage during the technique and uke falls by himself since nage does not rely on himself per se for the technique but on the effects of the forces. It is the forces that are strong and immovable and it just reflects on nage. That is also why a lot of people view aikido's techniques as magical yet they are not.

As always, this is just my own interpretation.

Hey Mario,
I think I get what you're saying. But in what manner does nage use the forces of nature against Uke. Does he use A, B, C, D, or do you have another definition of the phenomenon Nage is using?

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

Hey Mario,
I think I get what you're saying. But in what manner does nage use the forces of nature against Uke. Does he use A, B, C, D, or do you have another definition of the phenomenon Nage is using?

It is a variation of D.

A example of a principle of mine is that ALL techniques can be categorized into one of the 3 simple mechanical levers. The resistance is uke's hara, the lever and fulcrums change depending on technique. This applies to ALL techniques even with virtual fulcrums. You as nage are just a tool to fully use the effects of nature.

Another example is making uke's spine deviate away from a perfect upright position to let gravity work for you. Even the smallest deviation has tremendous effect such that nage can do little work to topple uke.

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

Hey Tom,
Thanks for the concise, and thoughtful reply.

So you started with "C" here, and moved on to say how that makes "D". I got where you're going. However, to me, "C" (and maybe we just need a better definition of the phenomenon of "C") sounds like it is describing a kind of physical powerfulness. If we compared you to a child for example, you are much much more powerful then the child, to him you would seem unmovable and strangely powerful (Definition "C"). However your power over the child doesn't give you definition "D" "automatically able to adapt to movements and changes made by the child (ever had a kid surprise you with a hit to the face? HA). It also doesn't make the child feel strangely weak, he just can simply tell the you are more power then he is. Like if you arm wrestled one of the competitors from the "worlds strongest man", he would probably easily beat you, but you wouldn't feel strange, or weaker then normal. Definition "D" has a quality about it that requires a strangeness or otherworldly quality. Definition "C" seems to simply show great physical power.

There is a problem here where we get into if one person were more skilled. That would eliminate definition "A" all together, because they are equally skilled. An example of this that I saw from Josh Reyder (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showth...t=18203&page=6) he was saying that in Yagyu Shinkage-ryu when the word Aiki is used, they are talking about "Departing the Aiki" in a situation where both opponents were in a unity of "attack and defense".

Having the ability described by "B" seems to be a different type of phenomenon to me then a physical skill, or body ability.

I definitely agree with you here! The thing I'm trying to avoid/find our way through, is something like one of the blind men yelling "I can feel that the elephant is pink" and all the other blind men agreeing.

Chris,

I should have read a little more carefully before responding. I think that there is a component missing form the C definintion. In my mind C should read.

C) A body ability, that once acquired gives it's practitioner great physical power and sensitivity, making them seem unmovable and strangely forceful.

Which would make aiki a hybrid of C & D. The great physical power would be like the power of the ocean, always present but different depending on circumstances or conditions.

I also read A and B and being mutually exclusive, if A describes two people of equal skill, able to discern no openings anddemonstrating the ability to understand, blend with,each other, leading to a standoff and precludes either of them from being able to manipulate the mind/intention of another person.

I think that if you could find a way to blend all of your definitions into one all inclusive one, that would probably be the closest definition of aiki as I understand it.

"Logical consequences are the scarecrows of fools and the beacons of wise men" - Thomas Henry Huxley

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

So you started with "C" here, and moved on to say how that makes "D". I got where you're going. However, to me, "C" (and maybe we just need a better definition of the phenomenon of "C") sounds like it is describing a kind of physical powerfulness. If we compared you to a child for example, you are much much more powerful then the child, to him you would seem unmovable and strangely powerful (Definition "C"). However your power over the child doesn't give you definition "D" "automatically able to adapt to movements and changes made by the child (ever had a kid surprise you with a hit to the face? HA). It also doesn't make the child feel strangely weak, he just can simply tell the you are more power then he is. Like if you arm wrestled one of the competitors from the "worlds strongest man", he would probably easily beat you, but you wouldn't feel strange, or weaker then normal. Definition "D" has a quality about it that requires a strangeness or otherworldly quality. Definition "C" seems to simply show great physical power.

Having the ability described by "B" seems to be a different type of phenomenon to me then a physical skill, or body ability.

The child fighting an adult is actually part of a good example, just not the way you yourself have outlined the parameters.
The opponent feeling strangely weak is not something I care about at all. In the venues I have chosen to test this against neither is ukemi (which would be openly mocked) a requirement or consideration. So the descriptive model is flawed in my opinion.

What I am more interested in (while using the child/adult model) is:
1. Dynamic Stability
A very well developed dynamic stability. In and of itself this begins the process of the person who attains it as *feeling* very powerful and strong against forces in or out (push testing, waza etc.) The means to do this come solely from training in C. (Solo training, from your example) The idea of training solo (C.) is not something new...well...maybe it is to you...but it is ages old and Ueshiba constantly pointed to it.
You claimed to be so thoroughly versed in internal power that you "got it" in a year or two. Yet, solo training is thee corner stone to achieve internal power!. Yet ...here we see...you don't get that at all and assigned it to tricks you learned in a couple of years and are flummoxed to explain anything.
Anyway....
The admonition for solo training, Ueshiba talked about over and over. Many of his descriptive models for what aiki is involved solo training. It is spelled out in Ueshiba's copying of the traditional teachings and exact terminology of other cultures; heaven/earth/man, six directions, one point, spiral energy, etc. I won't go into that in detail since it is routinely dismissed by everyone here.

Shirata laid out the model from C to D to A and B in his poem:Place the immovable body
In an invincible position
Release metsubushi
Until the opponent becomes
Non resistant...
There is that nagging immovable body again...doggon it!! ...Creating opportunities for D. A and B....that would not otherwise arrive and *feel* like an invincible position, and then have that work also produce blinding strikes and moves (no telegraphing and non-sourced power that feels unstoppable....Oh well. Lets not listen to him either. What does he know?

As parts of the whole....
a. I would only offer people to consider what it means to push and pull on someone and have them stand there looking at you-much more if they choose to engage you!! What "part" would that have in a confrontation? What advantage does that create in doing the rest of the requirements for budo or in fighting? What if the very act of pulling on someone, actually makes them stronger and causes you to feel almost magnetically "drawn-in" to them? What if pushing in to them causes you to feel repulsed back from them?
Where then would *your* power to do anything to them, matter?
What if that body quality removed slack and allowed them to move in a non- telegraphing manner that gave no signal and hence hard to read, was faster than normal, and could transfer weight on to you without giving you weight to use?
You are left with kicking and punching them or trying to out strategize them. Okay...
b. What if the training that caused the above also caused a body feel that felt like kicking and hitting a rubber tire and your power to do that sort of bounced off and you are only left with the face and balls?
c. Now what if, there were a way to use that body in motion so that all forces coming in were neutralized and absorbed and redirected ...as part of the initial training model without using waza or counters?
d. What if, the training inherent in C produces ALL of the above and then in the course of fighting, all of the above effects are amplified for certain reasons in using the body and that persons movement created aiki effects while their own punches and kicks were potentially knock out strikes in small distances?

In and of itself, a. b. and c. in my example above are all it usually takes to take apart shihan and other martial artists. I only have to resort to d. against fighters.

Where did this failure in understanding begin? Where does the fault rest? Interestingly the Yoshimine Yasuo interview echos my own findings, findings for which I was roundly criticized even when I was dead on accurate. Yoshimine is Japanese, so maybe it's okay for him to say it:

Quote:

The reason why the matter has fallen to such sorry state is because aiki is very difficult to master. So only external forms have been transmitted and it is very rare to encounter genuine aiki techniques. Accordingly, even among people who call themselves Shinan (instructor), unfortunately, only few know it......Hopefully, I think more open and modern/enlightened attitude will slowly change this and make aiki easier to learn

The admonitions of the blind man doesn't require and Elephant. Often it leaves out the most common reason for this state of affairs.The blind...leading the blind.

It seems that like me, Yoshimine doesn't really care what random people with no unusual power think about aiki when-as he says "Shihan don't get it either." As I quote often, neither did a ICMA teacher who said "Why argue with students?" Maybe the smart idea is to go to people with unusual power and find out their opinions on it.
I would suggest that on an Aikido forum, we would do well to begin a discussion of what aiki is ...by considering what the founder of the art had to say about...aiki. Aiki is solo training..his examples are a match, sometimes were actual quotations *borrowed* from Chinese sources for work spelled out in Koryu and Daito ryu. He continually pointed to solo training.

Searching high and yon for some whacked out, tricked out, new idea about how to feel ordinary -from students who feel ordinary- is a process that will lead no where, and accomplish nothing, other than to help you feel..well...as ordinary as your sources. Probably not a very good plan!!
Ueshiba, Aikido's founder, pointed out what to do. He laid out that aiki was:
C. leading to D. resulting in A. and B.

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

1. Dynamic Stability
A very well developed dynamic stability. In and of itself this begins the process of the person who attains it as *feeling* very powerful and strong against forces in or out (push testing, waza etc.) The means to do this come solely from training in C. (Solo training, from your example) The idea of training solo (C.)

So Dan, If I'm reading correctly, you are saying "C",( A body ability, that once acquired gives it's practitioner great physical power, making them seem unmovable and strangely forceful.) Is a type of dynamic stability? And this kind of dynamic stability comes from solo training?

If I've gotten that part right, what is this "dynamic stability"? I would describe dynamic stability as a way to quickly and spontaneously align my structure with the ground. Would you say that is a correct or incorrect definition of "dynamic stability"?

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

So Dan, If I'm reading correctly, you are saying "C",( A body ability, that once acquired gives it's practitioner great physical power, making them seem unmovable and strangely forceful.) Is a type of dynamic stability? And this kind of dynamic stability comes from solo training?

If I've gotten that part right, what is this "dynamic stability"? I would describe dynamic stability as a way to quickly and spontaneously align my structure with the ground. Would you say that is a correct or incorrect definition of "dynamic stability"?

Its an incomplete definition, as it doesn't require the use of structure. You can use structure, but it isn't a requirement for aiki. There is a great video from a seminar I attended a few years back which is private that goes over all of this and would be educational.

The notion of stability is very interesting, because it is this stability that makes one appear to have more weight, because they are able to get a greater percentage of their weight into a given movement. Simply put a someone weighing 175lbs who can access 60% of their weight, will feel heavier than 200lbs person who can only put 50% of their weight into a movement. Of course the heavier person has more potential, but can't access it. You have to essentially keep your weight committed straight down no matter what position you are in. This is much more challenging to do, than it sounds.

As for your initial question, there have been studies before with motion capture and other tools for people who are known to have IS. Check back around 2007 or 2008 for discussion of at least one on aikiweb. There are competition videos too, but most people keep them private as they keep most of the how too's for non-public consumption.

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

So Dan, If I'm reading correctly, you are saying "C",( A body ability, that once acquired gives it's practitioner great physical power, making them seem unmovable and strangely forceful.) Is a type of dynamic stability? And this kind of dynamic stability comes from solo training?

Well I said much more than that, Chris. Once again...why piece meal entire dialogues and expect a good outcome? You post things, I give lengthy answers with ideas and models. I get snippets for a reply.
Oh well
It's more than physical power, in fact "great physical power" is not a good description as you don't need that to produce what Sagawa called transparent power. Interestingly physical strength has routinely not done well with someone who can use IP/aiki.

Quote:

If I've gotten that part right, what is this "dynamic stability"? I would describe dynamic stability as a way to quickly and spontaneously align my structure with the ground. Would you say that is a correct or incorrect definition of "dynamic stability"?

I would say that's what everyone ...says. To me it's equal to all the teachers I have met telling me they are moving from center, cutting from center, etc. Yet when touched...are doing anything but.
So, aligning yourself with the ground how?
How would it *produce* dynamic stability..or fail to entirely?
Why is dynamic stability only a part?
How is it only a part?
How would C lead to the other things?
I'm not the one who said he got all this internal stuff in a year or two and it is easy to do. You were. What I am discussing is not unique so....why am I explaining all this internal power stuff when you can do it?
Dan

4.
anything composed of parts arranged together in some way; an organization.

Because without structure, the body would just be a noodle. So we have to have some way to hold the body together (structure) in order to direct force to and from the ground. Am I incorrect in this assumption?

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

Well I said much more than that, Chris. Once again...why piece meal entire dialogues and expect a good outcome? You post things, I give lengthy answers with ideas and models. I get snippets for a reply.

Sorry about that Dan, There is lot's to digest in what you are writing, I would like to address it all, but I need to do it one piece at a time. Once I understand one idea, I'd love to get on to the next. Thank you and sorry for the trouble

Quote:

So, aligning yourself with the ground how?
How would it *produce* dynamic stability..or fail to entirely?
Why is dynamic stability only a part?
How is it only a part?
How would C lead to the other things?
I'm not the one who said he got all this internal stuff in a year or two and it is easy to do. You were.
So.....explain all this internal power stuff.
Dan

Yeah, that's my question to you. I don't understand what you mean by these things. I would love to better understand your view on it. If you don't want to give your view point, I understand.

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

Hunter,
I could be wrong, but isn't structure a necessity?

Because without structure, the body would just be a noodle. So we have to have some way to hold the body together (structure) in order to direct force to and from the ground. Am I incorrect in this assumption?

I was always under the impression that 'stucture' in this context mean't holding specific postures or more generally using the bones as the pimary route to sustain forces through/in the body. Consider the octopus ... no bones yet ruthlessly efficient hunter - all soft tissue.

"In my opinion, the time of spreading aikido to the world is finished; now we have to focus on quality." Yamada Yoshimitsu

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Robert M Watson Jr wrote:

I was always under the impression that 'stucture' in this context mean't holding specific postures or more generally using the bones as the pimary route to sustain forces through/in the body. Consider the octopus ... no bones yet ruthlessly efficient hunter - all soft tissue.

The Octopus has muscles which it is using to create different structure. It also has teeth which have a very solid triangular structure that it uses to push through things (delicious fish!) Balloons don't have muscles or bones, yet the air pressure inside and the fabric of the balloon gives it structure. There are lot's of ways to make structure for alignments, but without structure you don't have anything really.

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

Hunter,
I could be wrong, but isn't structure a necessity?

because without structure, the body would just be a noodle. So we have to have some way to hold the body together (structure) in order to direct force to and from the ground. Am I incorrect in this assumption?

Given that you have some experience with chinese martial arts, I was assuming you were referring to the concept of structure as typically expressed in chinese martial arts. That is using certain alignment of the bones to transmit power. If you were referring to something else, please let me know.

Now since I can't post that video I earlier referred to, I will describe what happens. The guy giving the seminar has someone pushing on him in a position where his bones are in alignment where he can use structure. He then moves into a very compromised position where he is leaning over sideways with a bent spine (it looks like his body is making a C with his hips stuck way out to the side bent at the side instead of forwards) where he can't use that structural alignment to convey his opponents push into the ground. The pusher still can't effect him. If someone who doesn't understand jin, copies this shape, they tend to fall over when pushed.

This point of this is to show that the concept of jin (more specifically peng jin, as one's own body weight reflected off the ground) does not rely on structure. If one argues that you need second person for aiki, then jin isn't aiki, but to answer my earlier question, I guess it would be come aiki once you have a second person committing their weight/effort onto you.

So you can still convey weight into the ground and back into the opponent through connective tissue, tendons, joints etc, as well as through fascia, but you still need to commit this weight straight into the ground even when bent over. This is where Mike Sigman's suit model or discussion of the balloon man comes in. Sure, you can tense muscles to convey power too, but most people knows what happens, the body becomes stiff and you get taken advantage of.

Structure is great, and relatively easy to learn, but I'm not sure if it is really aiki or not, but it certainly can be used to convey forces very well.

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Hey Hunter,
I wouldn't limit structure to bones. Any structure can be used to carry (alignment) force to the ground. Is this what you are describing when you speak of the video example? The demonstrator is not using his bones to transmit the force, but he is using his bodies structure in another way (like the earlier example of the octopus or the balloon)?

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

From what I'm getting so far, description "C" of Aiki A body ability, that once acquired gives it's practitioner great physical power, making them seem unmovable and strangely forceful.

Sounds like it is a type of "dynamic stability" involving the ability to align your body with the ground, making yourself seem very powerful and unmovable.

I guess what I'm asking for is broad strokes here, until I can get a clear understanding. Is this "dynamic stability" made by aligning your structure (not limited to bones, but may also include muscles, ligaments, and bodily pressures) with the ground. This is done so that anyone who pushes on you feels like they are pushing into the ground making you feel very powerful and seem unmovable. This alignment with the ground also gives you a strong and stable base from which you can deliver force, making you seem very physically powerful.

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

Hey Dave,
I would personally define internal as it relates to what I learned from/of Chinese internal as:

The Ideally most efficient use of the body as a tool. Relating especially to physical structure and alignment.

Would you say this is something relating to "C" or something similar or something different all together? How and/or why?

I can see how "C" might be an important part of learning "D" but not a necessity. Could you briefly explain a bit more?

I think it's a way of distinguishing between internal and external training that internal training enables you to be stable and powerful even if your physical structure and alignment are compromised. It makes it harder for them to control you and easier for you to control them. I think that's "C".
At a more advanced level they won't even understand what's happening. I think that's "D".

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Dave de Vos wrote:

I think it's a way of distinguishing between internal and external training that internal training enables you to be stable and powerful even if your physical structure and alignment are compromised.

I don't particularly like this phrasing ... when well connected internally I'm not going to be compromised. No matter the posture or alignment, etc. When I'm 'on' the only way I become compromised is when someone 'better' (internally speaking) disrupts me - then it kind of does not matter 'cause I'm hosed unless I can break away and reset (or get armed).

That again, I suck (in case you didn't know). But in a good way.

"In my opinion, the time of spreading aikido to the world is finished; now we have to focus on quality." Yamada Yoshimitsu

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Dave de Vos wrote:

I think it's a way of distinguishing between internal and external training that internal training enables you to be stable and powerful even if your physical structure and alignment are compromised.

If your physical structure and alignment are compromised, what is making the force? It sounds to me, like what you are describing is no longer a body skill at all, but something different. Perhaps another definition would be needed.

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

Hey Mario,

This is what you would describe as "Aiki"? I would describe what you are talking about as "proper technique" using Mechanical advantage. Would you agree or disagree?

I think it is much more complex than this. If this is the case, then there is no difference between Judo and Aikido.

D) A body skill, that once acquired, allows your body to automatically adapt to movements and changes made by an attacker/opponent, that make the opponent feel strange, weak, unable to adapt to you.

I think this is because there are certain positions where if you put that body in those positions he is unable to adapt or regain his balanced state. An example is the upturned palm during the ikkyo pin. An ikkyo pin can actually be done using just a thumb on the elbow as long as the palm is facing upwards. With minimal contact, uke won't be able to move. But if the case is that uke's palm is turned down during the pin, he can easily regain his balanced state no matter what weight you put into the arm.

This is not mechanical advantage in the sense that the resistance, fulcrum and lever are in the same locations for both cases, the only difference is uke's palm if it is up or down during the pin.

This palm up case is also applicable when you are doing kuzushi in preparation kotegaeshi and other techniques meaning that that side of the arm is weakest if facing up. Uke can't do anything during kuzushi. There is also the feeling from uke that he is being drawn to nage. Your role as nage is to find these positions and manipulate uke to assume those positions.

so I think it's

D) A body skill, that once acquired, allows your body to automatically adapt to movements and changes made by an attacker/opponent, that make the opponent unable to regain his balanced state

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Mario Tobias wrote:

I think this is because there are certain positions where if you put that body in those positions he is unable to adapt or regain his balanced state. An example is the upturned palm during the ikkyo pin. An ikkyo pin can actually be done using just a thumb on the elbow as long as the palm is facing upwards. With minimal contact, uke won't be able to move. But if the case is that uke's palm is turned down during the pin, he can easily regain his balanced state no matter what weight you put into the arm.

This is not mechanical advantage in the sense that the resistance, fulcrum and lever are in the same locations for both cases, the only difference is uke's palm if it is up or down during the pin.

Hey Mario,
What do you think is happening in this situation that makes it difficult for Uke to get up from the pin? What makes turning the palm up or down have this effect?

I'm asking because I would like to know more about what you think the phenomenon causing this result is.

From what you just described, I would say you are describing something different then what I was getting from other people when I made an attempt at creating definition "D". To me, Definition "D" has a feeling that nage has trained his way to correctly make adjustments to the situation. But what you are describing, at least from what I read is related to something going on inside of Uke. This is why I said it seemed to me like "proper technique" and mechanical advantage. Maybe mechanical advantage wasn't far reaching enough, maybe I should have added "and/or inherent mechanical weaknesses in the body".

If I were going to make a quick definition of proper technique, maybe something like:
Proper technique: Taking advantage of inherent mechanical weaknesses in the body by means of a superior mechanical advantage.

This definition would allow for things that exploited either nage's superior mechanical advantage, or uke's inherent weaknesses (maybe what's going on with uke's palm in your description?).